Talk:Cellophane paradox/Archives/2012
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have removed the [[Category:Flagged articles]] from
the message above
. it was flagged at least two months ago by Some Other Editor,
but the current version looks OK to me. Avicennasis @ 04:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
un-nominating for deletion
(sorry; had a browser crash, in btwn de-tagging & talk page commenting)
1. it was a u.s. supreme court case, apparently; that pretty much makes it notable enough to be worth covering in an article, de facto. the u.s. supreme court doesn't do "non-notable" :P if a case was important enough for them to pick it up, it's important enough to rate at least minimal coverage in our legal section
2. obviously the article is poorly done & incomplete, not to merntion lacking in references! that needs to be fixed
3. perhaps we should consider re-naming it? naming it after the case, presumably; unless we can establish that the "Cellophane Paradox" actually is a concept/example used in economics, to some reasonable degree of notability...
76.69.8.242 (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I came to this page from George W. Stocking, Sr., and I attest that this tiny article is significant to complete the view outlined in that article. I see it as notable supreme court case, which is used in economic teory as an exemplary case. Reo ON | +++ 18:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
As an economist teaching a course in Antitrust and Regulation, I often use Wikipedia as a quick reference to notable antitrust cases. The "Celleophane Case" surely qualifies as notable. In particular, it was one of the first attempts to link a decision in an antitrust case to economics. As it happens, the esteemed judges got it wrong. However, more and better economic analysis of antitrust was on the way. The article could be improved by providing full citation to the Supreme Court decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.165.231.52 (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)